A prisoner of war or a deserter...soldiers from his platoon say he deserted and lives were lost looking for him...if he did desert he should be punished according to military law....Y did he have a hard time speaking English?

I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision as I'd have to weigh the fact that he was an Amercian citizen/soldier who voted D and seems like he deserted which caused many (I read at least 5) other soldiers to die searching for him.

I think this was an effort to close the book. We can't claim to leave Afghanistan when there are POW's regardless of the reason. Lesson learned…

The 5 transferred to Qatar don't appear to be hardcore terrorists and may actually help the Afghani government make amends.

Welcome to 2014.

-spence

What are you on, Jeff? Have you read their bios? I have taken the following from Reuters story posted 3 hours ago;

Senior officials at the Afghan intelligence agency said they believed the men would return to the battlefield and bolster the insurgency just as most foreign combat troops prepare to exit by the end of this year.

All five were classed as "high-risk" and "likely to pose a threat" by the Pentagon and held senior positions in the Taliban regime before it was toppled by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.

At least two of them are suspected of committing war crimes, including the murder of thousands of Afghan Shi'ites, according to leaked U.S. military cables.

What are you on, Jeff? Have you read their bios? I have taken the following from Reuters story posted 3 hours ago;

Senior officials at the Afghan intelligence agency said they believed the men would return to the battlefield and bolster the insurgency just as most foreign combat troops prepare to exit by the end of this year.

All five were classed as "high-risk" and "likely to pose a threat" by the Pentagon and held senior positions in the Taliban regime before it was toppled by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.

At least two of them are suspected of committing war crimes, including the murder of thousands of Afghan Shi'ites, according to leaked U.S. military cables.

I just don't see how you can draw your conclusion

Yes I'd read their bios and why I said they're not hardcore terrorists rather than Taliban militants. Looks like they're going to be held in Qatar for a year and by then we'll be gone.

Sounds like Congress has been informed of a potential deal but the timing was accelerated given a window of opportunity.

This is certainly an interesting story but not worthy of mind-bending outrage. They guy was a US citizen and still a member of the Army. Sounds like he became pretty disillusioned and may have cracked.

Of course the flip side is if he died in prison at the hands of the Taliban people would be screaming that Obama let a brave soldier go at the hands of the enemy...he could have done more...he should have done more etc...

Yes, and this is backed by Senator Chambliss ( Senate select Committee on Intelligence) that the 5 released were the most dangerous terrorists in Gitmo.

The 5 were detailed early in the war because of their relationship with the Taliban not alQaeda. I believe the rational was that considering they don't have the networks they used to and that Qatar -- a strong US ally -- has pledged to ensure they keep clean the overall risk was mitigated. Additionally, I've also read that under international law we'd have to let them go anyway once US forces leave Afghanistan.

There was a good remark I heard by a senior Pentagon official who said don't let the workings of the military get mixed up with the politics of the White House.

Watching FOX you'd think that Obama was personally handing them bomb vests as they walked out the gate...

A prisoner of war or a deserter...soldiers from his platoon say he deserted and lives were lost looking for him...if he did desert he should be punished according to military law....Y did he have a hard time speaking English?

Back to the OP.

It certainly looks like he did desert his post, but why he wasn't declared a deserter is still a mystery...so technically he would certainly be considered a POW.

Given that what he did was extremely reckless it would make you think that he cracked. Perhaps the Army didn't want to change his status until they had a chance to understand the motivation.

Interesting remarks from a former Bush official from a FOX Interview...that I for some reason went missing on their website

Quote:

“I don’t see how these particular Taliban officials could ever have been tried in the southern district of New York,” John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush explained during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday. “They’re certainly some Al Qaeda detainees who committed actual terrorist acts against Americans who perhaps could have been tried in a federal court because they committed federal crimes, but these particular Taliban detainees I think could never have been tried in federal court.” Although some of the released prisoners posed a danger to the United States when they were captured in 2002, especially toward soldiers serving in Afghanistan, several of the detainees did not commit crimes against Americans.

“I’m not saying this is clearly an easy choice but frankly I think a Republican, a president of either party, Republican or Democratic, confronted with this opportunity to get back Sgt. Bergdahl, who is apparently in failing health, would have taken this opportunity to do this,” he added. “I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration.”

It certainly looks like he did desert his post, but why he wasn't declared a deserter is still a mystery...so technically he would certainly be considered a POW.

Given that what he did was extremely reckless it would make you think that he cracked. Perhaps the Army didn't want to change his status until they had a chance to understand the motivation.

-spence

I think the bigger question is why Obama was hell bent on returning these 5 from Gitmo . I firmly believe this had little to do with a POW except as a politcal reasons
It was an excuse to return these 5 against the recommendations of all
Involved.
Maybe you can answer that Spence and come up with a plausible explanation ( excuse) for possible 14 dead great Americans looking for a deserterPosted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the bigger question is why Obama was hell bent on returning these 5 from Gitmo . I firmly believe this had little to do with a POW except as a politcal reasons
It was an excuse to return these 5 against the recommendations of all
Involved.
Maybe you can answer that Spence and come up with a plausible explanation ( excuse) for possible 14 dead great Americans looking for a deserterPosted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he was "hell bent" on releasing the 5 he could have tried to do it long ago.

The decision to move forward appears to be supported by many senior officials in the Administration and Military. Why do you say is against the "recommendations of all involved?"

It appears he may have been a deserter, but if this was the result of stress or traumatic disorder does that make him any less of an American?

It appears like this decision was thought through pretty well and supported by the military. Many republicans -- including John McCain -- publicly supported the idea of a GTMO prisoner swap.

For what political reasons would Obama do something he knows is going to wind up the GOP conspiracy machine?

Here's a question for Spence...why shouldn't the Taliban, or any group of criminals/terrorists, now be convinced that in order to get what they want, they just need to start snatching Americans and trading for them. Presidents used to say "we don't negotiate with terrorists". There is a very good resason that Presidents used to say that. It sets a terrible, terrible precedent. Please explain to me whty this doesn't put every single American at greater risk of being kidnapped? It incentivizes terrorists to do this sgain.

I don't get it, I just don't get it. Meanwhile, the Pakistani doctor who helped us get Bin Laden is still in a Pakistani prison, and until recently (just back from vacation, don't know the latest), that jailed Marine was still in mexico.

Here's a question for Spence...why shouldn't the Taliban, or any group of criminals/terrorists, now be convinced that in order to get what they want, they just need to start snatching Americans and trading for them.

A response to this I heard from a military leader basically dismissed this notion by stating they're trying to snatch Americans all the time already...

Quote:

Presidents used to say "we don't negotiate with terrorists". There is a very good resason that Presidents used to say that. It sets a terrible, terrible precedent. Please explain to me whty this doesn't put every single American at greater risk of being kidnapped? It incentivizes terrorists to do this sgain.

Yes, presidents used to "say" that but most of them do it any way.

Bush certainly did it in Iraq and I'd wager it happens a lot more frequently than most people are aware.

He is an American...he was not left behind.....now lets try him as a deserter....they will have enough evidence from his once comrades in arms... this is the 2nd biggest crime a military man can make...the 1st is turning his weapon on fellow military personal

A response to this I heard from a military leader basically dismissed this notion by stating they're trying to snatch Americans all the time already...

Yes, presidents used to "say" that but most of them do it any way.

Bush certainly did it in Iraq and I'd wager it happens a lot more frequently than most people are aware.

-spence

"A response to this I heard from a military leader..." Spence, you can usually find someone out there who will offer a quotethat supports your defense of Ogama. That doesn't make it right. How about telling us what you think.

"dismissed this notion by stating they're trying to snatch Americans all the time already"

OK. So everyone is wrong who says that if you reward people for bad behavior, you will encourage more bad behavior. I want to be clear, that's what you are saying? It's not reasonable to assume that anyone out there will see that the Taliban was handsomely rewarded for kidnapping this American, and be more likely to follow suit?

"Bush certainly did it in Iraq "

He negotiated with terrorists? Please explain...Prisoner exchanges happen all the time, in accordance with the Geneva Convention. That's not what this was, not by a long shot.

"I'd wager it happens a lot more frequently than most people are aware."

He is an American...he was not left behind.....now lets try him as a deserter....they will have enough evidence from his once comrades in arms... this is the 2nd biggest crime a military man can make...the 1st is turning his weapon on fellow military personal

I think the military will investigate and try him as a deserter if they find he was in control of his actions. If they think he cracked then got nabbed they may not go there.

But in the mean time Fox will politicize the hell out of it to make a ton of money regardless.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you can usually find someone out there who will offer a quotethat supports your defense of Ogama. That doesn't make it right. How about telling us what you think.

There's policy and there's exception. If it's your policy to always offer ransom then you'll likely see an effect. That's not our policy...

Quote:

OK. So everyone is wrong who says that if you reward people for bad behavior, you will encourage more bad behavior. I want to be clear, that's what you are saying? It's not reasonable to assume that anyone out there will see that the Taliban was handsomely rewarded for kidnapping this American, and be more likely to follow suit?

Soldier walks off base in full uniform into town and is captured. That's not a kidnapping, it was an opportunity in a theater of war. We would have done the exact same thing...

Quote:

He negotiated with terrorists? Please explain...Prisoner exchanges happen all the time, in accordance with the Geneva Convention. That's not what this was, not by a long shot.

Bush certainly cut deals with Sunni insurgents in Iraq including those who had targeted/attacked/killed Americans. Before 9/11 Bush helped pay 300 grand to a terror group to free missionaries in the Philippines (Note, it didn't end well). Hell Reagan sent arms to Iran after they were declared a State Sponsor of Terrorism!

There ya go blaming fox news....my home page MSN had qoutes from two soldiers that were in his outfit....we will C what if anything is done to him.

It's all about politicization and money. Back when a swap was discussed 2 years ago consultants were already trying to figure out how to manipulate it.

They'll seek these guys out, then the PR firms coordinate interviews with the most receptive media. Because it's getting attention everybody feels they have to cover it.

Frankly I'd put a lot more faith in what our military leadership is saying about this whole event than the media. The coverage on most outlets has been lame and the coverage on Fox outright reprehensible. Really, really ugly.